About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
the federal law they're much more common in the state's that don't do much of the gun shows and in the state's generating some publicity i heard that open air market that i've shown you pictures of have basically closed with the promoter saying you can't sell guns there so i went back and this time shooting the video from the united corps but indeed they have absolutely no gun sales but everybody has congregated about 150 feet up against the building. he was relocated about a 32nd flock. the other thing that happened, and jamie was kind enough to mention they were kind of winding down the office in the city of new york sent a team of private detectives out and we talked to cameras and we talked on how to try to avoid detection and talked about some gun shows we might want to go to. i had one guy walking around with a camera and these guys were pros. the allies and the years of engagement that said you can't talk to anybody but they were not so hampered and the shot a video and i'm going to show it to you. >> i'm going to let this speak for itself. >> i need to see your id. >> no background c
about is that stuff comes up from underground. new laws in colorado, pennsylvania, and ohio which release information about the hydraulic fracturing chemicals say notwithstanding any of the above. we don't have to tell you reactions, anything we bring up from underground. that's dumb. that's just adding to the secrecy, adds to the fears, adds to the concerns, and i'm not saying there are no toxicology effects in the gulf, but reviewing it with my colleagues and reviewed all previous gulf things and snitted -- submitted to the new england journal of medicine, the reviewers were concerned that we were not saying enough about how many people would get leukemia from benzine from the spill, and the answer is probably nobody, but the psychosocial effects are reel. we have to work on communicating with the public. >> just a leadership observation, in the events i've been involved in, i've always tried to use the standard of transparency as the way to deal honestly and forthrightly with the public. the problem is that if you inadd veer -- inadvertently did not disclose information, you ar
that lapsed in 2004. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men with no criminal records who want to die. these are adult facts that don't intrude on the childish world of white house policy making. he notes adam lanza in newtown, his own mother of course passed a background check. >> here's the bottom line. these laws are not perfect. and you'll always find certain exceptions. but they make a huge difference. every major person who has studied the brady law, which is the most significant gun safety law we've passed in the last 20 years has said it has reduced gun violence dramatically.
has studied the brady law, which is the most significant gun safety law we've passed in the last 20 years has said it has reduced gun violence dramatically. law enforcement is totally for the brady law. and the idea that felons or people who are mentally infirm or people who are spousal abusers should be allowed to buy guns, most everyone agrees on that, even -- >> but there's no overwhelming evidence of the assault weapons ban dramatically reduced this incident of violence, nor was there an uptick in this sort of violence once the law lapsed. >> during the 10 years that the assault weapons ban was in effect, the use of those weapons in crime went down a significant percent an. >> senator, is there any gun regulation, any restriction of gun rights, you could accept or vote for? >> sure. i think the fact that we have background checks with people buy firearms and we prevent felons and those with serious mental illness acquiring them, those make perfect sense. >> so a background check is something you could support? >> well, the background checks are in place when a licensed firearms
of violence once the law lapsed. >> during the 10 years that the assault weapons ban was in effect, the use of those weapons in crime went down a significant percent an. >> senator, is there any gun regulation, any restriction of gun rights, you could accept or vote for? >> sure. i think the fact that we have background checks with people buy firearms and we prevent felons and those with serious mental illness acquiring them, those make perfect sense. >> so a background check is something you could support? >> well, the background checks are in place when a licensed firearms dealer sells firearms. and there's a lot of room for improvement -- >> but 45% of sales are citizen to citizen. that's the loophole we talk about. >> that statistic is pretty bogus. it's based on a study before the background checks were put into place. so that study is highly questionable, that 45%. >> wayne lapierre never questioned that study when i brought up that point. he questioned feasibility and collecting records, but still there is a loophole that a lot of people would like to correct. >> there actually isn't
and actually working out a budget we can hold ourselves to. that's still in the act. that's a law. that's always the law by april 15. but -- the bill -- >> i think it's time for the senate to take up a budget. actually show the american people the color of their stripes. they have been insulate by the house republicans by us passing bills that harry reid said would pass the senate. preconference bills that were dropped at our laps at the end of the crisis right when we were getting ready to shut down the government or hit our default position. i think this is good from the standpoint that we're going to force the senate to debate on the floor of the senate a lot of them only see the floor when they go to vote, i want to see them debate, standing before the american people and talking about their liberal policies and their spending priorities. i believe america needs to see that. i think if we have hope as conservatives to take back the united states senate, we have got to expose those guys and fwals for what they are. >> and i hope that is really the case. but again, this bill has to be
to be done with force, north korea says, not with words, as it, the united states, regards jungle law as the rule of its survival. so does this mean that north korea is going to start lobbying nuclear test missiles at the united states and, even more importantly, are they even capable of that? the truth is, last december, north korea had its most successful launch to state. it managed to carry a payload of 1300 pounds and travel about 6,000 miles or it is capable of that which would bring it to the coast of carolina. they say all they were trying to do was get a satellite into space. that's all this program was about. but intel general analysts say they don't believe it. they think the problem is, given time, north koreans could test enough and one day they could swap this out for a nuclear warhead. >> so if you combine, tom, that test with this latest message, does that mean that the u.s. will strike the mainland with a nuclear weapon? >> in a word, wolf, no, it does not. they really are profound. they have to look at the issue of re-entry. the simple fact that you can get a rocket l
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)